A low-income neighborhood known as Boca la Caja next to the business district of Panama City, Panama. (Carlos Jasso/Reuters)

It was easy to miss the miracle that occurred in New York in the fall of 2000. The miracle was one of the reasons why, over the ensuing decade, humanity experienced the fastest decline in poverty in history.

On September 8, 2000, at the headquarters of the United Nations in New York, 189 heads of state signed a lofty set of promises that they called the Millennium Declaration. In it, they committed “To halve, by the year 2015, the proportion of the world’s people whose income is less than one dollar a day and the proportion of people who suffer from hunger and, by the same date, to halve the proportion of people who are unable to reach or to afford safe drinking water. To ensure that, by the same date, children everywhere, boys and girls alike, will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling and that girls and boys will have equal access to all levels of education.” They also promised to reduce maternal mortality by three quarters and under-five child mortality by two thirds, while also reversing the spread of HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other major diseases.

In the past 13 years, 500 million people have escaped extreme poverty.

Most people who heard the news at the time yawned and moved on. And why not? Politicians have taught us not to take their promises too seriously, especially when, like the Millennium Declaration, they are proffered at that annual tournament of mendacity and hypocrisy called the UN General Assembly. Inevitably, the Declaration quickly disappeared from the public’s view as more attention-grabbing news filled the headlines: the Palestinian Intifada, Saddam Hussein’s refusal to accept UN inspections, Hillary Clinton’s ascent into the Senate, and the Supreme Court’s decision to recognize George W. Bush as the 43rd president of the United States.

Yet since that September, 13 years ago, there are 500 million fewer people living in conditions of extreme poverty, while malaria-related deaths have dropped by 25 percent and infant mortality has fallen by 30 percent. Two hundred million inhabitants of the poorest neighborhoods in the world have gotten access to water, sewage systems, and better homes.

This progress was a result of many factors—high rates of economic growth, especially in Asia, more employment options and better salaries, increased public spending on healthcare, and more effective social policies. Countries like China and India becoming more deeply integrated in the global economy through trade and investment also contributed to the enormous reduction in poverty levels. In China for example, extreme poverty rates dropped from 60 percent in 1990 to 12 percent in 2010.

Poverty alleviation may have been propelled by a variety of forces, but the widespread adoption of the Millennium Declaration was a surprising catalyst of this unprecedented progress in the living standards of the poor. It was surprising because, rather than vague promises and generic statements of governmental intention, the Declaration’s goals were concrete, measurable, and time-bound. It defined eight goals, 21 specific objectives, and 60 indicators to track progress toward the goals. Moreover, it was a very public commitment with an expiration date: the year 2015. These factors created healthy competition among governments. In some countries, progress—or lack thereof—toward attaining the Millennium Development Goals became part of the national political debate.

Not surprisingly, the results have been uneven. Brazil, for example, achieved many of its goals, while progress in countries like Benin and Niger has been far less notable. The greatest shock, however, has been the unexpected success of the goals in the face of insurmountable odds. Not only was the Millennium Declaration aggressively ambitious, but its progress has continued in spite of the disastrous world economic crisis that burst forth in 2008. And some of the goals—such as halving the number of people without access to drinkable water and the number of people living in extreme poverty—were achieved five years before the target date. Others will not be met by 2015, and some targets saw no advancements whatsoever: We have yet to make a substantial dent in carbon-dioxide emissions. Work must still be done to attain these goals, and surely other goals will have to be added to any post-2015 campaign.

Development has a new category: problems where rich countries can learn from poorer ones.

To that effect, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon named a panel of "eminent persons" to assess the Millennium Declaration, consult broadly, and outline a post-2015 agenda. Their report sets forth a roadmap for the effort going forward. I asked Homi Kharas, a respected development expert who coordinated the work of this group for over a year, what surprised him most during the endeavor. “How much the interdependence between poor and rich countries has intensified. It has always existed, but it is now deeper and more important than ever,” he replied.

We already knew that some policies of rich countries—trade barriers or weapons exports, for example—hurt poor ones. And we also knew that there are many problems—global warming and illegal migration flows, for instance—that rich and poor countries must face together. According to Kharas, the list of problems in these categories has grown larger and more complex.

But the real revelation is that there is a new and important category: problems where rich countries can learn from the experience of poorer ones. Indeed, some issues, once typical of less developed countries, are now also plaguing the most advanced ones. Economic inequality is perhaps the most notable example. Living with high levels of inequality has been the norm in many poor countries, but now it is increasingly widespread in the U.S. and Europe. In the United States, the gap between the richest 1 percent and the rest of the population is now the widest it’s been since the 1920s, and Europe is also seeing its income distribution worsen. We’re seeing these trends in unemployment as well. The high rates of unemployment suffered by the hardest-hit European countries mirror those found in lower-income countries, where chronic unemployment is common. Youth unemployment is now particularly acute in both rich and poor countries.

These trends are alarming. And it is obvious that containing—or reversing— them will require a protracted and highly targeted effort, one similar to the campaign launched by the adoption of the Millennium Declaration. In 2015, we will need another miracle like the one that took place in 2000. But this time, it must also encompass the world’s richest countries.

About the Author

Moisés Naím is a contributing editor at The Atlantic and a distinguished fellow in the International Economics Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He is author of more than 10 books, including, most recently, The End of Power.

Most Popular

Should you drink more coffee? Should you take melatonin? Can you train yourself to need less sleep? A physician’s guide to sleep in a stressful age.

During residency, Iworked hospital shifts that could last 36 hours, without sleep, often without breaks of more than a few minutes. Even writing this now, it sounds to me like I’m bragging or laying claim to some fortitude of character. I can’t think of another type of self-injury that might be similarly lauded, except maybe binge drinking. Technically the shifts were 30 hours, the mandatory limit imposed by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, but we stayed longer because people kept getting sick. Being a doctor is supposed to be about putting other people’s needs before your own. Our job was to power through.

The shifts usually felt shorter than they were, because they were so hectic. There was always a new patient in the emergency room who needed to be admitted, or a staff member on the eighth floor (which was full of late-stage terminally ill people) who needed me to fill out a death certificate. Sleep deprivation manifested as bouts of anger and despair mixed in with some euphoria, along with other sensations I’ve not had before or since. I remember once sitting with the family of a patient in critical condition, discussing an advance directive—the terms defining what the patient would want done were his heart to stop, which seemed likely to happen at any minute. Would he want to have chest compressions, electrical shocks, a breathing tube? In the middle of this, I had to look straight down at the chart in my lap, because I was laughing. This was the least funny scenario possible. I was experiencing a physical reaction unrelated to anything I knew to be happening in my mind. There is a type of seizure, called a gelastic seizure, during which the seizing person appears to be laughing—but I don’t think that was it. I think it was plain old delirium. It was mortifying, though no one seemed to notice.

Why the ingrained expectation that women should desire to become parents is unhealthy

In 2008, Nebraska decriminalized child abandonment. The move was part of a "safe haven" law designed to address increased rates of infanticide in the state. Like other safe-haven laws, parents in Nebraska who felt unprepared to care for their babies could drop them off in a designated location without fear of arrest and prosecution. But legislators made a major logistical error: They failed to implement an age limitation for dropped-off children.

Within just weeks of the law passing, parents started dropping off their kids. But here's the rub: None of them were infants. A couple of months in, 36 children had been left in state hospitals and police stations. Twenty-two of the children were over 13 years old. A 51-year-old grandmother dropped off a 12-year-old boy. One father dropped off his entire family -- nine children from ages one to 17. Others drove from neighboring states to drop off their children once they heard that they could abandon them without repercussion.

His paranoid style paved the road for Trumpism. Now he fears what’s been unleashed.

Glenn Beck looks like the dad in a Disney movie. He’s earnest, geeky, pink, and slightly bulbous. His idea of salty language is bullcrap.

The atmosphere at Beck’s Mercury Studios, outside Dallas, is similarly soothing, provided you ignore the references to genocide and civilizational collapse. In October, when most commentators considered a Donald Trump presidency a remote possibility, I followed audience members onto the set of The Glenn Beck Program, which airs on Beck’s website, theblaze.com. On the way, we passed through a life-size replica of the Oval Office as it might look if inhabited by a President Beck, complete with a portrait of Ronald Reagan and a large Norman Rockwell print of a Boy Scout.

Since the end of World War II, the most crucial underpinning of freedom in the world has been the vigor of the advanced liberal democracies and the alliances that bound them together. Through the Cold War, the key multilateral anchors were NATO, the expanding European Union, and the U.S.-Japan security alliance. With the end of the Cold War and the expansion of NATO and the EU to virtually all of Central and Eastern Europe, liberal democracy seemed ascendant and secure as never before in history.

Under the shrewd and relentless assault of a resurgent Russian authoritarian state, all of this has come under strain with a speed and scope that few in the West have fully comprehended, and that puts the future of liberal democracy in the world squarely where Vladimir Putin wants it: in doubt and on the defensive.

The same part of the brain that allows us to step into the shoes of others also helps us restrain ourselves.

You’ve likely seen the video before: a stream of kids, confronted with a single, alluring marshmallow. If they can resist eating it for 15 minutes, they’ll get two. Some do. Others cave almost immediately.

This “Marshmallow Test,” first conducted in the 1960s, perfectly illustrates the ongoing war between impulsivity and self-control. The kids have to tamp down their immediate desires and focus on long-term goals—an ability that correlates with their later health, wealth, and academic success, and that is supposedly controlled by the front part of the brain. But a new study by Alexander Soutschek at the University of Zurich suggests that self-control is also influenced by another brain region—and one that casts this ability in a different light.

Modern slot machines develop an unbreakable hold on many players—some of whom wind up losing their jobs, their families, and even, as in the case of Scott Stevens, their lives.

On the morning of Monday, August 13, 2012, Scott Stevens loaded a brown hunting bag into his Jeep Grand Cherokee, then went to the master bedroom, where he hugged Stacy, his wife of 23 years. “I love you,” he told her.

Stacy thought that her husband was off to a job interview followed by an appointment with his therapist. Instead, he drove the 22 miles from their home in Steubenville, Ohio, to the Mountaineer Casino, just outside New Cumberland, West Virginia. He used the casino ATM to check his bank-account balance: $13,400. He walked across the casino floor to his favorite slot machine in the high-limit area: Triple Stars, a three-reel game that cost $10 a spin. Maybe this time it would pay out enough to save him.

“Well, you’re just special. You’re American,” remarked my colleague, smirking from across the coffee table. My other Finnish coworkers, from the school in Helsinki where I teach, nodded in agreement. They had just finished critiquing one of my habits, and they could see that I was on the defensive.

I threw my hands up and snapped, “You’re accusing me of being too friendly? Is that really such a bad thing?”

“Well, when I greet a colleague, I keep track,” she retorted, “so I don’t greet them again during the day!” Another chimed in, “That’s the same for me, too!”

Unbelievable, I thought. According to them, I’m too generous with my hellos.

When I told them I would do my best to greet them just once every day, they told me not to change my ways. They said they understood me. But the thing is, now that I’ve viewed myself from their perspective, I’m not sure I want to remain the same. Change isn’t a bad thing. And since moving to Finland two years ago, I’ve kicked a few bad American habits.

A professor of cognitive science argues that the world is nothing like the one we experience through our senses.

As we go about our daily lives, we tend to assume that our perceptions—sights, sounds, textures, tastes—are an accurate portrayal of the real world. Sure, when we stop and think about it—or when we find ourselves fooled by a perceptual illusion—we realize with a jolt that what we perceive is never the world directly, but rather our brain’s best guess at what that world is like, a kind of internal simulation of an external reality. Still, we bank on the fact that our simulation is a reasonably decent one. If it wasn’t, wouldn’t evolution have weeded us out by now? The true reality might be forever beyond our reach, but surely our senses give us at least an inkling of what it’s really like.

A report will be shared with lawmakers before Trump’s inauguration, a top advisor said Friday.

Updated at 2:20 p.m.

President Obama asked intelligence officials to perform a “full review” of election-related hacking this week, and plans will share a report of its findings with lawmakers before he leaves office on January 20, 2017.

Deputy White House Press Secretary Eric Schultz said Friday that the investigation will reach all the way back to 2008, and will examine patterns of “malicious cyber-activity timed to election cycles.” He emphasized that the White House is not questioning the results of the November election.

Asked whether a sweeping investigation could be completed in the time left in Obama’s final term—just six weeks—Schultz replied that intelligence agencies will work quickly, because the preparing the report is “a major priority for the president of the United States.”

Democrats who have struggled for years to sell the public on the Affordable Care Act are now confronting a far more urgent task: mobilizing a political coalition to save it.

Even as the party reels from last month’s election defeat, members of Congress, operatives, and liberal allies have turned to plotting a campaign against repealing the law that, they hope, will rival the Tea Party uprising of 2009 that nearly scuttled its passage in the first place. A group of progressive advocacy groups will announce on Friday a coordinated effort to protect the beneficiaries of the Affordable Care Act and stop Republicans from repealing the law without first identifying a plan to replace it.

They don’t have much time to fight back. Republicans on Capitol Hill plan to set repeal of Obamacare in motion as soon as the new Congress opens in January, and both the House and Senate could vote to wind down the law immediately after President-elect Donald Trump takes the oath of office on the 20th.